You know the old saying "you are what you're record says you are"

You all can twist it and turn it all you want, this team, underachieved this year, lack of focus, lack of preperation, inferior coaching, 3 things that come to mind.

---

I love stats but your saying we are the unluckiest team, that gets me curious were we the luckiest then last year?

---

You guys have to understand the idea first.

In 2006 the Cleveland Indians were 78-84 and scored 870 runs and let up 782. They scored significantly more than they let up. The following season they didn't change much of their team, a few new players like every season but nothing too major. They ended up going 96-66 while scoring only 811 runs and allowing 704.

2006 Pythagorean record - 89-73.
2006 Actual record - 78-84

2007 Pythagorean record - 91-71
2007 Actual record 96-66

The whole point is that teams usually don't lose every single close game. The luck factor which does come into play in sports a lot more than many of you give it credit for usually is pretty balanced. When you get such a lopsided record of 5-9 and have still scored 30 more points than you've given up, some of the record could be contributed to luck.

I'm not saying we are some great team that has gotten unlucky every week and we don't have to worry about changing anything. My point though is that teams who score more than they allow usually win more games, in any sport. It also isn't as if we came up with this to "spin" anything. Bill James, the most respected statistician in sports uses expected W/L and values it greatly.

---

My point.. if we had played up to potential and capitalized on opportunities early in games.. we wouldn't have had to rely upon any freaking "luck" late in games.

So many times in games this season we got close to pulling off a momentum changing play on both sides of the ball.. we didn't seize the chance and lost late in the game.

Oh and these last couple weeks late in the games... IMO, you can see this team's lack of confidence shine.. they are just waiting to get beat. No luck in that.

---

When you opened this thread you came into it with a closed mind. There's no point in arguing anything because you have made your decision on the idea before you even fully understood it.

---

I think you both made valid points.

---

Hardly..

The concept can be proven and dismissed in context of how you want to look at it.

If one took the Packers 07 season and ran it through the basis used, then it very well might conclude that we should have lost more games than not.

I love numbers.. mathematical principles can be used endlessly.. but in such a dynamic game as this, I don't see how it can quantify the tangible theory of "luck".

But I sure in the hell can replay the games and see a slight over throw here, a missed blocking assignment there and released FB into the flat..

My point, is I think it is a flawed analogy to determine the "luck" of a team.

But go ahead and call me insular again.

---

The point that Matt was making is that the trend should be positive next year.. well unless the Packers correct their focus, gameplan's and preparation in the offseason.. the math can be tossed out the window.

The talent says we have a team that can compete in this league.. the mental breakdown's say we lose these games due to our, I repeat, our play.

I think it a anomaly that we were in as many games as we have been.

---

That wasn't intended to be a personal attack and you obviously put more thought into this than most of the others that responded. I wrongfully grouped you in with the few that immediately dismissed the idea.

I still think this has some backbone. Aside from our games vs. the Cowboys and Saints we have been in it until the last half of the 4th quarter, and not just a few points away but with the chances to take the lead or even in the lead. We can play with any team in the league, even now with our defense giving up an insane amount of points. It isn't good to see us losing all of these close games, but it absolutely gives hope for the following seasons. I would be much less optimistic about the future if the Packers were 5-9 and playing like the Browns.

---

I think luck is all in the name, like Starr, Unitas, Tittle, Stabler, Bradshaw, Marino, Elway, Montana, Young, Manning . . .

We were a lot luckier with the name Favre because it sort of rhymed with Starr.

:icon_smile: :icon_smile: :icon_smile: :icon_smile: :icon_smile:

---